since it is difficult for man to determine what is alive, if it does nto have a soul?

Question

if this is true, if we are to take the athiestic route, and state that since we may or may not have souls, this makes the abortion argument a little harder to discuss. now we have two definitions of what it is to be alive, 1. it has a heart beat, 2. it has the ability to acomplish tasts.

if we are to go with 1, a child developes a heart very early within its growing phases so it would be considered killing a child if we abortad it even in some of the earliest stages.

if we are to go with 2, its ability to function and to do stuff on its own, what bar do we raise this to, can a child who does not spell right, be aborted, how about one that does not do complex math, worse yet, anyone who believes in these "silly ideas" of a christian God?

ZER0 C00L,

what then, would you define as "alive"?

NH Baritone
so it is based on the babies ability to live outside, once again, ability.

Zero Cool

I am trying to get people tot hink, really thats all.

what however would you determine as consious thought, would it be intelligent thought, thoughts that they are aware of, as children with DS, and other mental retardations may not be aware of there own thoughts, but they are very much alive.

Main Entry: ac·com·plish
Pronunciation: &-'käm-plish, -'k&m-
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English accomplisshen, from Anglo-French accompliss-, stem of accomplir, from Vulgar Latin *accomplEre, from Latin ad- + complEre to fill up -- more at COMPLETE
1 : to bring about (a result) by effort
2 : to bring to completion : FULFILL

Main Entry: 1task
Pronunciation: 'task
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English taske, from Middle French dialect (Picardy, Flanders) tasque, from Medieval Latin tasca tax or service imposed by a feudal superior, alteration of *taxa, from taxare to tax
1 a : a usually assigned piece of work often to be finished within a certain time b : something hard or unpleasant that has to be done c : DUTY, FUNCTION


breathing would be an accomplish task as one must both inhale and exhale which is its full completion of breathing, while the "task" can be seen as timely

Answer 1

Terri Schiavo had a hearthbeat but I wouldn't've described her as "alive" for the last decade of her "life". No, I wouldn't consider something with JUST a heartbeat "alive", nor would I go so far as to say that something is "alive" only if it can accomplish tasks like hunting and gathering or crocheting a blanket.

I think I'd say that a fetus is "alive" once it has a recognizable EEG pattern which shows up at about 25 - 28 weeks of gestation. The age of viability is also at around 25 weeks (a poor but possible chance to survive).

Are you asking for human life or biological life? To me, it seems obvious that conscious thought is a major part of what being alive is for humans, or at least existent. "Cognito Ergo Sum." There's also waste excretion, response to stimuli, undergoing metabolism... Is this what you mean?

Answer 2

I'm not exactly sure that I follow your argument. Any scientific definition of life is a bit more detailed than "having a heart beat". A generally accepted definition includes biological characteristics such as: homeostasis, cellular organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and the ability to reproduce.
So, using this definition, an embryo and /or foetus is considered a life form. Genetically, the embryo/foetus is human. Genetically the embryo/foetus is a human distinct from it's mother.
Whether the unborn has a soul is really irrelevant. The question should be whether it's moral or ethical to kill what is, based on biological principles, a living human individual?

Answer 3

Sorry, but you're in WAY over your head.

Having a heart beat is not by any stretch of the imagination a reasonable criterion for "alive". Ability to accomplish tasks? That's just silly.

The "soul" stuff is a non-starter, as there isn't any such thing as a "soul", and believers can't even agree what "soul" means.

I do give you credit, though, for understanding that this is a question that we should be working on. Antiabortionists in general just seem to assume that everyone agrees already with their own personal deeply flawed definitions. That assumption on their part is what has caused the abortion issue to persist, and has resulted in a lot of dead babies.

Answer 4

Straw man argument!!!! No one has ever said that life is the "ability to accomplish tasks." YOU made that up.

Anti-abortion people suggest a heart-beat, but that's simply an organ that is function, like any other and deserves no more credit for assigning life than liver function.

it is the mother's body, and so long as the fetus cannot survive without her, it is not alive. Forcing her to give even one day to acting as an incubator against her will is slavery.

ADDITION:
I fear that you and I are not speaking the same version of English. Most Americans do not consider breathing and swallowing in the realm of "accomplishing tasks." Perhaps you do.

ADDITION NUMBER 2:
I've come to believe that you would develop an argument designed to convince me that the sky is chartreuse, if you had by mistake suggested it earlier. "Never correct yourself" seems to be your philosophy. Similar to a certain world leader. Never mind. You probably got what you need from someone else other than me.

Answer 5

Well that’s the thing. The problem isn’t black or white. The world isn’t black or white. There is not now nor has there ever been a clear line between right and wrong.

I’ll give you one thing, God does make things a little easier. You don’t have to think that hard if you just believe that god said don’t do it therefore you don’t do it.















































Well, I understand Zero Cool’s point of view and agree with it to some extent, but I consider a tree or a flower alive and there is no thought there. It’s not the issue of whether or not it is alive.

I’m pro-choice, but that isn’t the definition of “alive”.

Answer 6

There is a huge difference between what organism is alive and what organism is viable.

In your analysis above, you seem to list the 2 possible arguments for viability from the atheist perspective, but I disagree with your analysis of the atheist position (I am pro-life for the record.

If humans do not have souls, then any and all determinations of both conception and viability are relatively meaningless, since there would be no afterlife and therefore no purpose to Earthly life.

With this reality, all morality and therefore laws regarding morality would be arbitrary, or at best on the same level as the morality of lower animals with any level of culture, e.g. chimps, our closest relatives, since we know they do not have souls either.

Answer 7

A 12 months Already !!! I bear in mind that day with first-class unhappiness :(, i remeber turning at the TV and considering the fact that Bob Woolmer had died simply one million day after Pakistan have been knocked out of the World Cup. And on the second i idea anybody had KILLED him, and to at the present time i nonetheless consider he used to be KILLED !! He used to be being covered as much as exchange Duncan Fletcher, after the World Cup, in conjunction with Tom Moody, so i believe Woolmer could have received the activity after Fletcher. He used to be a well teach, first-class guy supervisor, and tactician. A man above me mentioned that he had combined outcome with Pakistan, BUT whilst he coached Pakistan, they had been a crew in a transition, they'd new gamers, so Woolmer did very good with the gamers he had. Also England has a MUCH better pool of gamers than Pakistan, so Woolmer IMO could were an overly capable teach of England R.I.P BOB WOOLMER

Answer 8

Well no the actual biological definition of life is something which self replicates and can undergo Darwinian evolution by natural selection. And seen as how biology is the study of life I think we should take that definition. Say no to jesus

Answer 9

You prove my point. People shy away from THIS kind of abortion debate because although it's more intellectually honest, it involves a lot of complexity and ambiguity.

What we are concerned with isn't life itself -- plants are alive and we eat them. And life doesn't "begin" at childbirth or conception. It began billions of years ago.

What we are concerned with is human consciousness.

Answer 10

The Hebrew word translated “soul” is ne′phesh, and it occurs 754 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. What does ne′phesh mean? According to The Dictionary of Bible and Religion, it “usually refers to the entire living being, to the whole individual.” This is borne out by the Bible’s description of the soul at Genesis 2:7: “Jehovah God proceeded to form the man out of dust from the ground and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man came to be a living soul.” Note that the first man “came to be” a soul. That is to say, Adam did not have a soul; he was a soul—just as someone who becomes a doctor is a doctor. The word “soul,” then, here describes the whole person.

The word translated “soul” (psy·khe′) appears more than a hundred times in the Christian Greek Scriptures. Like ne′phesh this word often refers to the whole person. For example, consider the following statements: “My soul is troubled.” (John 12:27) “Fear began to fall upon every soul.” (Acts 2:43) “Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities.” (Romans 13:1) “Speak consolingly to the depressed souls.” (1 Thessalonians 5:14) “A few people, that is, eight souls, were carried safely through the water.” (1 Peter 3:20) Clearly, psy·khe′, like ne′phesh, refers to the whole person. According to scholar Nigel Turner, this word “signifies what is characteristically human, the self, the material body having God’s rûaḥ [spirit] breathed into it. . . . The emphasis is on the whole self.”

Interestingly, in the Bible the word “soul” applies not only to humans but also to animals. For example, in describing the creation of sea creatures, Genesis 1:20 says that God commanded: “Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls.” And on the next creative day, God said: “Let the earth put forth living souls according to their kinds, domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth according to its kind.”—Genesis 1:24; compare Numbers 31:28.

Thus, the word “soul” as used in the Bible refers to a person or an animal or to the life that a person or an animal enjoys. The Bible’s definition of the soul is simple, consistent, and unencumbered by the complicated philosophies and superstitions of men.

When pronouncing sentence upon Adam, God stated: “Dust you are and to dust you will return.” (Genesis 3:19) Before God formed him from the dust of the ground and gave him life, Adam did not exist. When he died, he returned to that state. His punishment was death—not a transfer to another realm. What, then, happened to his soul? Since in the Bible the word “soul” often simply refers to a person, when we say that Adam died, we are saying that the soul named Adam died. This might sound unusual to a person who believes in the immortality of the soul. However, the Bible states: “The soul that is sinning—it itself will die.” (Ezekiel 18:4) Leviticus 21:1 speaks of “a deceased soul” (a “corpse,” The Jerusalem Bible). And Nazirites were told not to come near “any dead soul” (“a dead body,” Lamsa).—Numbers 6:6.

It is similar with the resurrection of a widow’s son, recorded in 1 Kings chapter 17. In verse 22, we read that as Elijah prayed over the young boy, “Jehovah listened to Elijah’s voice, so that the soul of the child came back within him and he came to life.” Once again, the word “soul” means “life.” Thus, the New American Standard Bible reads: “The life of the child returned to him and he revived.” Yes, it was life, not some shadowy form, that returned to the boy. This is in harmony with what Elijah said to the boy’s mother: “See, your son [the whole person] is alive.”—1 Kings 17:23.